Hey I've had a similar issue for about two and a half years. Here's some things I do to get around this.

My core strength was never an issue from other activities but the specific "core" exercises I was given would often aggravate my pain. Most compound lifts are going to significantly use your core anyway but if you want to target it directly I recommend, glute-ham raises, planks, side-planks, and hip thrusts.

Mobility and flexibility help so much to relieve the pain I experience.

You're probably going to have to experiment a lot in terms of what works for you. Even basic exercises you may have to do differently. I bench in a pretty odd way. If I do weighted squats I usually do death sets with Zercher squats.

I bought some resistance bands so I could work out while traveling. I started using them very, very consistently. They take a lot of the strain off my back and they are a nice change up from the weights.

Legs. Working out legs is the hardest thing with back so I use a couple of different things. I climb stairs with a weighted vest (this is also one of the few things that grew my calves as well), I ride a bike, and I do a bunch of modified squats. I simply can't squat or deadlift heavy at the moment so I use splits squats, lunges, Zercher squats and death sets.

Bodyweight, the bodyweight progressions are pretty good if you can make them work for you. Pull-ups will engage your abs intensely. Combine this with dips and squats, that's a pretty solid full body routine.

I don't understand what you're referring to but I can tell you have some misconceptions about insulin, satiation and what efficiency is.

I hope the citations clear that up for you.

I'm editing this to make it much more clear, there's still plenty to be learned about nutrition and what's below is my best understand of what our current knowledge is about nutrition. As far I know there has been no long term study that has shown weight/fat loss through varying macronutrient consumption. I have seen some that show carbohydrates promote slightly more fat loss but those ones also fell within the margin of error.

That being said, there is evidence that in certain circumstances, such as the obese, carbohydrate restriction may be beneficial due to leptin levels and water loss, u/nlaq1 describes this pretty well and (s)he may do a better job than me. Lastly, carbohydrate cycling has been shown to work quite well for some people due the fact (and this is my best understanding) that the body engages in serious thermogenesis when doing a refeed.

If people have successfully lost weight/fat on a ketogenic diet is not because of insulin nor have they become more "efficient" at burning fat; this would mean that they burn less fat by the way. If you refill your fat stores at the same rate that you burn them they will obviously remain the same. You can do this with dietary fat or by the body converting those carbs and even sometimes protein into fat.

"The reason insulin suppresses fat burning is because it's a signal of glucose abundance. It's telling tissues to stop burning fat because carbohydrate is the available fuel. If you eat a meal of 500 calories of carbohydrate, you will burn that carbohydrate under the direction of insulin, which will also make sure body fat mostly stays inside your fat cells during the process. If you eat a meal of 500 calories of fat, you will burn fat instead of carbohydrate, but since you just ate fat, you aren't dipping into your body fat stores any more than you were when you ate carbohydrate. So even though insulin temporarily suppresses fat burning and the release of fat from fat cells when you eat carbohydrate, at the end of the day if you ate the same number of calories you end up with the same amount of fat in your fat cells either way. You now know more about insulin than many popular diet gurus."

Protein will also cause an insulin spike. Although I can't find a decent citation for it at the moment.

I don't agree that being in ketosis is "starvation mode" but the body is a homeostatic organism with a variety of checks and balances. Macronutrient manipulation outside of certain settings isn't going to cause weight loss in and of itself and if it does, insulin is the not mechanism by which it occurs. Some people claim ketogenic diets cause weight loss through the mechanism of ketogenesis which could be true, but I'm pretty sure that one is still up for debate. The best evidence is that ketogenic diets are still primarily successful in people with mild excess bodyfat because they are, for some people, a sustainable way to maintain a caloric deficit.

Interesting. If you're that high I wouldn't bulk, but I also know the frustration of being stuck a low bench. I was stuck at around the weight you were and couldn't get it up then benched like crazy and bulked too. Actually, maybe I should just shut up since typing this it seems that I did the same thing ;)

I'd just that upon first glance it seems as though you're a little too high to bulk but I'm just a stranger on the internet. As a former skinny guy I wish you the best of luck. Also overhead pressing helped my bench a lot, maybe that will help you.

I might have similar proportions to you. I have a back injury that prevents me from deadlifting but it took me only a couple months to hit three plates and it took several years to hit 2 plates on the bench press.

Is 13% and 11% your body fat percentage? You should be fairly jacked at that height and weight if it is. I'm pretty close to in proportions.

As for me personally, I love what I do and I got into the law to help people, which I do everyday. All of our work is done on contingency and some is pro-bono. I don't speak for all attorneys but we a disparate bunch with a wide variety of motivations for doing the work we do.

--My suggestion of sending a (pretty mild, frankly) message by not shaking your hand is utterly justified. If you can find another of the major professions that is a poorly run, and poorly thought of - then by all means let me know.--

This is not really worth addressing.

--In the meantime - IMPROVE in a completely new manner
Find ways to improve in the same fashion as mobile phones improved in 2008 - with a major change, and big thinking.--

This is stupid. A complete overhaul of the system into what? By what means?

--Incidentally: How many lawyers have you met that gently encourage their clients to lie. Doesn't that feel morally suspect to you??--
Never met an attorney who did that to my knowledge, if you know of one let your local bar know, they'll be disbarred immediately.

--Me: "KPI's don't include things such as low cost and low stress that the community actually want"
You: Ignored by you
Let me get rapidly to the meat of the issue:
You seem to think that the evolutionary changes related to legal precedent are the sorts of large changes that would bring about the improvements to KPI's (such as stress and cost) that the Community actually wants. I think that's a fallacy on an unconscionably large scale. Realistically the ONLY thing that these changes do are to shift the current biases within the system from one group to another, and don't improve the underlying system one iota. This is like saying "we might build you a slightly better mud hut, or maybe in a different place - but we won't investigate whole new solutions to housing, and perhaps design a concrete, brick or wooden house, let alone seriously hi-tech solutions"--

I didn't realize you knew exactly what every member of every community wanted. I'm kidding, but not really. Your "KPIs" quite frankly, are stupid. You don't know enough about how the law functions to make a determination as to what a KPI would be for the law. There's no way to do a "low stress" criminal trial all the time for a low cost. Two people in a car accident suing each other will want totally different things, can't make them both happy. Can't tell you how contentious divorce proceedings are. People go to court because someone fucked and someone is really unhappy.
However, I should point out that unbeknownst to you making low cost legal services more accessible to the general public is a pretty big issue that is being addressed by some legal advocacy groups. I'd recommend that you check those groups out. (protip: you're misusing fallacy.)

--Speaking of biases - here are some example existing biases:
Insurance - always biased towards the person that injured themselves. Virtually never is heard "gosh, that was a stupid thing to do - you're responsible for your own destiny and mistakes". The ridiculous state of Russian judgements against people who are "hit" (deliberately run into cars) is the clearest example of it.--

I assume we're talking about the US since this is a conversation in a post about someone who was in the US Penal system. What happens in Russia is completely irrelevant.

You seem to know exactly how personal injury cases should be handled do you think someone who was injured might have a different opinion? How do you propose we weight their interest? You don't have answers to the problems you're presenting, again, because you don't know how the system actually works.

--Family law - currently biased heavily towards the "receiving parent" (in 80% of cases these are women), largely due to the massive lobbying efforts by women's groups over the last 50 years. At least two men I know have refused to have children largely due to these biases.--

Your conclusion lacks analysis, context or citations. It is irrelevant to this discussion. Your anecdote about two people is silly.

--Criminal law - "if we stumble across a suspect we can arrange a case around - we'll stop looking for the actual suspect, or someone that might be more likely".--

I actually kind of agree with this one. I've definitely seen that happen.

--Seriously - these whole "we are objective and unbiased" lies really need to be exposed. You people destroy entire lives with your poor practices and clear biases within a system you claim is very objective.--

I don't claim the system is objective, I don't know anyone who does. You didn't read my prior response carefully enough. The system is made up of inherently flawed people trying to reach a consensus as to how to resolve human conflict. That's tough. It's not "low cost" or "low stress". The law is trying to fix fuck ups or prevent them. It's not a happy place, I'm sorry if the reality of that makes you uncomfortable.

--In short: your methods are antiquated; you have no KPI's; you don't even know what a KPI is ; if Doctors acted like you people they'd be lynched, not just sued for malpractice (you people largely inflict the massive healthcare costs on the country as Doctors desperately try to stop being sued for tiny or unlikely problems.--

No. Again I addressed KPIs. You'd need a better understand of a specific specialty to describe how to improve as far your comment about the price of healthcare you need to back that up before I even address it. It's so fucking silly.

--In very short: you don't care about the community. There is zero effort towards revolutionary change (such as trialing other approaches other than an adversarial system, evidence handling, the presentation and notification of evidence, and the list just keeps going on).--

You don't know anything about "trialing" or evidence. I can guarantee you don't really know enough about the adversarial system. These are nonsensical statements.

Describing discretion in every single instance is nuts. That's like describing every single medical procedure. If you want to know the reason for discretion look at the drafting of the bills that grant it. You want to read case law grab a Daily Journal, any reporter. Legislation is published, published decisions are published. None of this is hidden from the public. A Westlaw or Lexis account is available to anyone. Case books can be purchased online. There is no secret place that lawyers go to for information on the law. We're simply trained to understand it in a way that the public isn't and often times we need help. In fact, lawyers are required to get continuing education credits simply so we stay alert to changes in our given field.

--You go on to state that there's "very good reasons" why this exists - but don't state what those reasons are. This seems very typical of the law: "there's very good reasons for the way things are, but we won't tell you what those reasons are". We aren't children where the adults get to keep the reasons from the children. Tell us where to find these reasons, because personally they seem very much like biases in the system towards one group or another - and that would seem a bad thing for a supposedly unbiased system to do. Seriously - where are these magic "reasons" documented publicly?? - this is actually one of my clearest requests for a response.--

Like I stated above an analysis of discretion on a case by case basis would be insane and legal analysis is pretty readily accessible. Ken Popehat, who I believe to be a fantastic legal scholar, posts on Reddit. Hell, you can even message him, he's fantastic.
Ask your local state legislator why they approved certain legislation and maybe you'll get an answer as to why statutes are written the way they are. The judiciary interprets laws the legislature drafts them. Justia.com is free and there's a plethora of websites that offer good explanations of the law. The issue is that you need a basic education because you will not understand what you're reading. There are terms that I'm using that you don't understand, I would post more links but I don't have faith that you'll read them. Just know that a term of art is a word used that triggers specific legal concepts. They are often also words in English but mean something else in legalese. Again decisions are published all the time there would be no way to keep these secret from the public. That is a ludicrous charge.

--Me: "Standards for evidence change dramatically depending on the type of crime or branch of law"
(summarising) - "your examples aren't standards of evidence, but types". Wow, sorry. As a non-lawyer I'd be more gentle in correcting you if you mis-spoke in my profession. Apparently that common courtesy doesn't occur in law. "Burden of proof to convict" DOES vary widely from branch of law to branch of law. The examples I gave are valid even if the wording I used is wrong.--

I'm not insulting you. You were wrong and you continue to be wrong, if you can't handle someone correcting you don't make foolish statements on the internet. I'm not being rude either. Even with the most gracious accounting for your incorrect use of terms your assertions would still be wildly inaccurate. You can't expect to be taken seriously if you can't use the correct terms of art. There's a reason these definitions are so precise. Burden of proof for a conviction will NEVER CHANGE, it takes literally twenty seconds to verify that, less time than typing a paragraph to me; if you're interested in advocating take the time to actually learn what you're talking about. You either don't understand what burden of proof is (protip: you don't) or what a conviction is (protip: you don't). If you can't take the time the time to get educated about basic concepts why would anyone listen to you? Beyond a reasonable doubt is an excellent standard when imposing a criminal liability such as deprivation of liberty. By a preponderance of the evidence is more appropriate in civil settings. An explanation would be over your head because you don't understand those basic concepts.

I think others can benefit from this conversation if they stumble upon so I'll have the discussion here instead of through messaging.

I'm weary of continuing this discussion since you're suffering from a bad case of the Dunning–Kruger effect but I'll do my best. You don't really address the gaping holes in your knowledge and since you'd appreciate if I address every little point you have I'd really appreciate if you read the links I provided. Seriously, it WILL help you.

I admire your passion and desire to change and I appreciate the civility, let's keep that going. Let me say I'm entirely indifferent to your suggestion people avoid shaking lawyers hands. I'm not indifferent to the fact that are commenting on a subject that you have no education on. But hey this is Reddit right ;) As far as your criticism that I've provided you with misinformation, feel free to cite things in support, I don't claim to be an expert, I have my JD and I know enough to know that you don't know anything, but I imagine almost any other lawyer would know more than me, so if you find credible sources send them over, I'd love to know more.

Alright here we go.

--My statements, and your responses (analysed correctly, not a spray of links and misinformation)--

You need to read the links. You don't understand basic concepts or definitions. You continue to use terms that you don't understand. You believe that the practice of law is limited to litigation and you don't understand how the branches of government work. I don't make assertions that I can't back up. You make assertions incorrectly using terms you don't understand without any factual support.

--Me: "Laws are sometimes flexible, sometimes not. There's very little consistency"
You: "You're absolutely right about some laws having flexibility and others not".
Yet later you state "So in summation every single one of your statements is incorrect". Logically - both these statements can't be true, so you're self-inconsistent.--

Don't misquote me. Here is my actual statement: "So in summation every single one of your statements is incorrect. Either by the direct assertion the statement was made in support of or the validity of the statement itself."

Addressing discretion. You don't understand the role of the legislature in drafting statutes and therefore discretion. You also don't understand that the law cannot attempt to address every single possibility. The law is flexible at times to deal with the infinite complicated realities of life. I can't imagine you're so naive to think that you one prepare for EVERY single possibility in the range of human conflict and experience.

Legal precedent occurs literally on a daily basis. Meaning the law is undergoing the process of reevaluation EVERY SINGLE DAY. I've worked in the legal profession in varying capacities for 15 years. No one has ever said it's "impossible to improve" probably because the system has an influx of laws coming in from the legislature that are constantly evaluated and interpreted.

You're absolutely right about some laws having flexibility and others not. When you're a legal scholar or a lawyer feel free to comment on that. There's very good reasons there is flexibility and discretion. Sometimes there's not but YOU don't know enough to identify either situation.

"Standards of evidence" are very specific but the examples you give aren't standards, those are types of evidence and you don't even get the types right. There are VERY, VERY good reasons why burden of proof changes based on the situation. Burden of proof to convict remains the same regardless of the crime. You seem unaware of that. Affirmative defenses and rebuttable presumptions will have different burdens.

So in summation every single one of your statements is incorrect. Either by the direct assertion the statement was made in support of or the validity of the statement itself. The fact that you don't understand some VERY VERY basic concepts leads me to believe a basic education would be really beneficial.

You seem very passionate about these issues, put that passion to good use and learn about the legal system it needs dedicated individuals such as yourself who are interested in reform.

EDIT: For grammar.
2nd EDIT: You said "Otherwise, I'll just call you names too" but just to be clear and in the interest of civility I should point out I haven't called you names or insulted you so I'm not sure where you got that from.

Holy shit! Thank you for that insightful comment. I'm vegan and I have to tell people all the time the exact same thing. Yeah you'll get full if all you eat is broccoli and avocado but your body doesn't process those calories differently than that cheesecake.